Ex Parte Gioscia et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 27, 201613563331 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/563,331 07 /31/2012 22879 7590 07/29/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Richard Gioscia UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 83016450 1427 EXAMINER MUSLEH, MOHAMAD A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD GIOSCIA, PHILLIP BRYAN, MICHAEL CHRISTIAN RYNER, and GIOVANNI MATAMAGANA1 Appeal2015-000751 Application 13/563,331 Technology Center 2800 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of claims 1-16 as anticipated by Sajid (US 2012/0211377 Al; published. Aug. 23, 2012). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. Appellants claim a computing device accessory comprising a first cover segment (110, 112, 130) having an exterior surface and an inner surface with a recessed region (132) to receive a base of a tablet computing 1 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-000751 Application I3/563,33 I device, a second cover segment (120) extending from the first cover segment and having a plurality of foldable panels (122, I24, I26), a magnetic component (I 46) provided with the first cover segment and positioned to actively retain the tablet computing device, wherein the exterior surface of the first cover segment includes a raised structure (128, 440), and wherein an edge of one of the plurality of foldable panels is configured to abut the raised structure in one or more stable positions (independent claim I, Figs. IA-IC and 4A--4C). Appellants also claim a covered tablet computing device assembly (independent claim 6) and a cover for a tablet computing device (remaining independent claim I I) having the same or similar limitations. A copy of representative claim I, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. I. A computing device accessory comprising: a first cover segment including an inner surface and an exterior surface, the inner surface including a recessed region to receive a base of a tablet computing device; a second cover segment extended from the first cover segment, the first and second cover segment forming a binder- style case for the tablet computing device, the second cover segment including a plurality of foldable panels; and a magnetic component provided with the first cover segment, the magnetic component being positioned to actively retain the tablet computing device when the base of the tablet computing device is received in the recessed region; wherein the exterior surface of the first cover segment includes a raised structure, and wherein an edge of one of the plurality of foldable panels is configured to abut the raised structure in one or more stable positions. 2 Appeal2015-000751 Application 13/563,331 Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to identify any disclosure in Sajid of the limitation required by each independent claim "wherein the exterior surface of the first cover segment includes a raised structure, and wherein an edge of one of the plurality of foldable panels is configured to abut the raised structure in one or more stable positions" (see, e.g., App. Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 5---6). Appellants' argument is persuasive. In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that element 1620 in Figure 16 of Sajid corresponds to the raised structure and that an edge of one of Sajid's foldable panels is configured to abut the raised structure as claimed (Final Action 2-3). However, as correctly explained by Appellants, Sajid merely discloses that element 1620 is a keyboard sleeve and, in any event, does not disclose that an edge of one of Sajid's foldable panels is configured to abut sleeve 1620 in a stable position as claimed (App. Br. 9-10). In the Answer, the Examiner finds that "figures 16-17 clearly show that an edge of one of the plurality of foldable panels [for an example element 1758] is abutting the raised structure [1702] in one or more stable positions [fig. 17a shows element 1702 in a stable position]" (Ans. 3 (brackets in original)). Appellants convincingly argue that this finding also is erroneous. Specifically, Appellants explain that element 1702 is a tablet panel rather than a raised structure on the exterior surface of a first cover segment as claimed, that the tablet panel 1702 at best corresponds to the claimed first cover segment, and that Sajid contains no disclosure of the limitation in question (Reply Br. 5---6). 3 Appeal2015-000751 Application 13/563,331 For these reasons, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. We do not sustain, therefore, the § 102 rejection of claims 1-16. The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation